What is healthy hybrid work? Exploring employee perceptions on well-being and hybrid work arrangements

• Date: 23 July 2024
• Pages: 335-352
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-03-2024-0041
• Published date: 23 July 2024
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Gemma Dale,Hannah Wilson,Matthew Tucker

What is healthy hybrid work?

Exploring employee perceptions on

well-being and hybrid

work arrangements

Gemma Dale, Hannah Wilson and Matthew Tucker

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Purpose –This research investigates the personal experiences of hybrid workers, exploring their perspectives

on their health and well-being when undertaking hybridworking arrangements. The research further explores

how organisations can proactively support the health and wellbeing of hybrid workers, mitigating any

potential health risks.

Design/methodology/approach –A cross-sectional, qualitative online survey was used to collect data from

412 hybrid workers. The data were analysed thematically. This approach allows for nuanced insights into the

personal experiences of hybrid workers to be understood.

Findings –Findings indicate that employees who undertake hybrid work experience both positive and

negative effects on their subjective well-being; hybrid work arrangement has the potential to act as a job

resource or job demand. The study further identifies actions that can support healthyhybrid work that will be

of value to organisations offering these working arrangements.

Originality/value –Although empirical research has previously examined the relationship between remote

work and employee well-being, there is a lack of in-depth understanding about employees’experiences of well-

being whilst undertaking hybrid work –an emerging and relatively unexplored working arrangement. This

research therefore addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing a deep understanding of how

hybrid work influences employee well-being. Furthermore, previous research has not yet explored how hybrid

worker health can be enabled and supported by organisations and individuals themselves.

Keywords Hybrid work, Employee wellbeing, Remote work, Working from home

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The global pandemic led to a rapid expansion of remote work, initially on an involuntary

basis due to government mandates to work from home. Following what became known as the

“great working from home experiment”(Banjo et al., 2020), it was evident that there was a

significant demand for the continuation of remote work (McKinsey, 2021;ONS, 2021;Taneja

et al., 2021;Chung et al., 2020;ILO, 2022). Central to this preference is a desire to improve

work-life balance (Vargas Llave et al., 2022), spend more time with family and reduce

commuting (Chung et al., 2020). The majority of employees indicated a preference for a hybrid

work arrangement –a combination of office and remote working (Barrero et al., 2021). Many

organisations responded to this demand; by early 2023, 28% of UK employees were

undertaking some form of hybrid work (ONS, 2023); a CIPD (2023) report found 83% of

organisations were offering hybrid work arrangements to their employees. For many

organisations, however, this represents a very different way of working from that employed

before the pandemic.

Predictions suggest that in the future, globally, 1 in 6 jobs could be undertaken from home,

rising to 1 in 4 for more advanced countries (ILO, 2020). In the UK, up to 50% of jobs are

capable of being undertaken remotely in the near future (Felstead, 2022). Consequently,

understanding the challenges and benefits for employees is important to avoid negative

outcomes for well-being.

International

Journal of

Workplace Health

Management

335

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 1 March 2024

Revised 17 May 2024

26 June 2024

Accepted 1 July 2024

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 17 No. 4, 2024

pp. 335-352

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-03-2024-0041

The outcomes of hybrid work at scale for both organisations and employees are largely

unknown. The extant literature on remote work draws predominantly from a time when remote

work was undertaken less frequently and limited to specific job roles or industries orfrom during

the pandemic when homeworking was involuntary. Furthermore,much of the research published

more recently focuses on performance and outcomes rather than employee-related benefits.

Previous research into remote work and well-being has highlighted its complex nature

and has not resulted in a conclusion as to whether it is good for employee well-being

(Charalampous et al., 2019). It has been found to have both positive and negative effects at the

same time (W€

ohrmann and Ebner, 2021). It is argued that overall, remote work does appear to

have a net benefit, improving employee health more than damaging it (Crawford, 2022), and is

likely to be “more good than bad for individuals”(Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). However,

these findings are tentative, and there appear to be intricacies around the employees’

experiences of working in a hybrid manner.

Many organisations are currently choosing return-to-office mandates over flexible

approaches (Knight, 2024) due to a variety of reasons such as a lack of collaboration

(Tsipurskey, 2023) or reduced innovation (Tilo, 2024). This is apparent even in the face of

many employees deciding to leave the organisation due to these decisions (Elliot, 2024).

Therefore, organisations do not appear to consider employees’aspirations for hybrid work

but rather focus on performance metrics. Therefore, it is important to understand the

complexity of the rationales for hybrid work from an employee’s perspective to enable

organisations to understand why hybrid working may be an important approach.

This research study aims to understand, from the perspectives of hybrid workers, the

well-being challenges and benefits that arise from undertaking hybrid work and actions or

initiatives that might support healthy hybrid work. The study therefore poses the following

research questions:

RQ1. What are the well-being challenges and benefits of undertaking hybrid work, from

the perspectives of those who undertake it?

RQ2. How can we use this knowledge to help organisations support the well-being of

employees undertaking hybrid work?

Undertaking the first research objective, thereby developing a detailed understanding of

employees’perspectives, will enable research objective two. Existing literature indicates the

potential for employees to experience negative impacts on health and well-being resulting

from remote work; organisations need to avoid these negative impacts in order to minimise

risk to employee health and any subsequent negative business impacts as a result.

Literature review

Employee well-being is often discussed as a benefit of hybrid working; however, it is

theoretically underexplored. Four out of five organisations that intend to implement, or have

implemented,hybrid work opportunitiesinclude the potential to improveemployee well-being

as a reason for doingso (ONS, 2022). The extant literature on the relationship between remote

work and well-being is, however, contradictory in nature, identifying both positive and

negativeeffects potentiallyat the same time (W€

ohrmannand Ebner, 2021). For example,remote

workhas been found to both reduce stresslevels (Montreuiland Lippel, 2003)aswellasincrease

them (Arvola and Kristjuhan, 2015). These differences in mental health outcomes may result

from differencesin the extent of telework, the design ofthe specific working arrangement,the

job resources avai lable (Beckel andFisher, 2022) or the frequency of remotework (Henke et al.,

2016). The relationship betweenhybrid work and well-being,therefore, appears to be complex

and is typically examined within the confines of quantitativeapproaches.

IJWHM

17,4

336